Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in 
	the Democratic Revolution

Osvobozhdeniyeismand NewIskraTrends

Let us now proceed to another striking confirmation of the
      political meaning of new-Iskratrend.

In a splendid, remarkable and most instructive article, entitled
      “How to Find Oneself” (Osvobozhdeniye, No. 71),
      Mr. Struve wages war against the “programmatic revolutionism” of
      our extreme parties. Mr. Struve is particularly displeased with
      me

			     personally.[1]Mr. Struve could not please me more: I
      could not wish for a better ally in the fight against the
      renascent Economism of the new-Iskraists and the utter lack of
      principle displayed by the “Socialist-Revolutionaries.” On some
      other occasion we shall relate how Mr. Struve and theOsvobozhdeniyeproved in practice how utterly
      reactionary are the “amendments” to Marxism made in the draft
      program of the Socialist-Revolutionaries. We have already

			      repeatedly[2]spoken about how Mr. Struve rendered me
      honest, faithful and real serviceevery time he approved of the new-Iskraistsin principleand we
      shall say so once more now.

Mr. Struve’s article contains a number of very interesting
      statements, which we can note here only in passing. He intends
      “to create Russian democracy by relying on class collaboration
      and not on class struggle,” in which case “the socially
      privileged intelligentsia” (something in the nature of the
      “cultured nobility” to which Mr. Struve makes obeisance with the
      grace of a truly high-society . . . lackey) will bring the
      weight of its “social position” (the weight of its moneybags) to
      this “non-class” party. Mr. Struve expresses the desire to show
      the youth the worthlessness “of the hackneyed radical opinion
      that the bourgeoisie has become frightened and has sold out the
      proletariat and the cause of liberty.” (We welcome this desire
      with all our heart. Nothing will confirm the correctness of this
      Marxian “hackneyed” opinion better than a war waged against it
      by Mr. Struve. Please, Mr. Struve, don’t pigeonhole this
      splendid plan of yours!)

For the purposes of our subject it is important to note thepracticalslogans against which this politically
      sensitive representative of the Russian bourgeoisie, who is so
      responsive to the slightest change in the weather, is fighting
      at the present time. First, he is fighting against the slogan of
      republicanism. Mr. Struve is firmly convinced that this slogan
      is “incomprehensible and foreign to the masses of the people”
      (he forgets to add: comprehensible, but not of advantage to the
      bourgeoisie!). We should like to see what reply Mr. Struve would
      get from the workers in our study circles and at our mass
      meetings! Or are the workers not the people? And the peasants?
      They are given to what Mr. Struve calls “naïve
      republicanism” (“to kick out the tsar”)—but the liberal
      bourgeoisie believes thatnaïverepublicanism will
      be replaced not by enlightened republicanism but by enlightened
      monarchism!Ça dépend, Mr. Struve; it will
      depend on circumstances. Neither tsarism nor the bourgeoisie can
      help opposing a radical improvement in the condition of the
      peasantry at the expense of the landed estates, whereas the
      working class cannot help assisting the peasantry in this
      respect.

Secondly, Mr. Struve assures us that “in a civil war the
      attacking party always proves to be in the wrong.” This idea
      verges closely on the above-mentioned trends of the newIskraideas. We will not say, of course, that in civil
      war it isalwaysadvantageous to attack; no, sometimes
      defensive tactics are obligatoryfor a time. But to
      apply a proposition like the one Mr. Struve has made to Russia
      in 1905 means precisely displaying a little of the “hackneyed
      radical opinion” (“the bourgeoisie takes fright and betrays the
      cause of liberty”). Whoever now refuses to attack the autocracy
      and reaction, whoever is not making preparations for such an
      attack, whoever is not advocating it, takes the name of adherent
      of the revolution in vain.

Mr. Struve condemns the slogans: “secrecy” and “rioting” (a riot
      being “an insurrection in miniature”). Mr. Struve spurns both
      the one and the other—and he does so from the standpoint of
      “approaching the masses.” We should like to ask Mr. Struve
      whether he can point to any passage in, for instance,What Is To Be
      Done?—the work of an extreme revolutionary from his
      standpoint—which advocates rioting. As regards “secrecy” is
      there really much difference between, for example, us and
      Mr. Struve? Are we not both working on “illegal” newspapers
      which are being smuggled into Russia “secretly” and which serve
      the “secret” groups of either the Osvobozhdeniye League or the
      R.S.D.L.P.? Our workers’ mass meetings are often held “secretly”
      —that sin does exist. But what about the meetings of the
      gentlemen of the Osvobozhdeniye League? Is there any reason why
      you should brag, Mr. Struve, and look down upon the despised
      partisans of despised secrecy?

True, the supplying of arms to the workers demands strict
      secrecy. On this point Mr. Struve is rather more outspoken. Just
      listen: “As regards armed insurrection, or a revolution in the
      technical sense, only mass propaganda in favour of a democratic
      program can create the social-psychological conditions for a
      general armed insurrection. Thus, even from the point of view
      that an armed insurrection is theinevitableconsummation of the present struggle for emancipation—a
      view I do not share—the permeation of the masses with ideas
      of democratic reform is a most fundamental and most necessary
      task.”

Mr. Struve tries to evade the issue. He speaks of the
      inevitability of an insurrection instead of speaking about its
      necessity for the victory of the revolution. The
      insurrection—unprepared, spontaneous, sporadic—has
      already begun. No one can positively vouch that it will develop
      into an entire and integral popular armed insurrection, for that
      depends on the state of the revolutionary forces (which can be
      fully gauged only in the course of the struggle itself), on the
      behaviour of the government and the bourgeoisie, and on a number
      of other circumstances which it is impossible to estimate
      exactly. There is no point in speaking about inevitability, in
      the sense of absolute certainty with regard to some definite
      event, as Mr. Struve does. What you must discuss, if you want to
      be a partisan of the revolution is whether insurrection isnecessary for the victoryof the revolution, whether it
      is necessary to proclaim it vigorously, to advocate and make
      immediate and energetic preparations for it. Mr. Struve cannot
      fail to understand this difference: he does not, for instance,
      obscure the question of the necessity of universal
      suffrage—which is indisputable for a democrat—by
      raising the question of whether its attainment is inevitable in
      the course of the present revolution—which is debatable and
      of no urgency for people engaged in political activity. By
      evading the issue of the necessity of an insurrection,
      Mr. Struve expresses the inner most essence of the political
      position of the liberal bourgeoisie. In the first place, the
      bourgeoisie would prefer to come to terms with the autocracy
      rather than crush it; secondly, the bourgeoisie in any case
      thrusts the armed struggle upon the shoulders of the
      workers. This is therealmeaning of Mr. Struve’s
      evasiveness. That is why hebacks outof the question
      of the necessity of an insurrection towards the question of the
      “social-psychological conditions” for it, of preliminary
      “propaganda.” Just as the bourgeois windbags in the Frankfurt
      Parliament of 1848 engaged in drawing up resolutions,
      declarations and decisions, in “mass propaganda” and in
      preparing the “social-psychological conditions” at a time when
      it was a matter of repelling the armed force of the government,
      when the movement “led to the necessity” for an armed struggle,
      when verbal persuasion alone (which is a hundredfold necessary
      during the preparatory period) became banal, bourgeois
      inactivity and cowardice—soalsoMr. Struve evades the
      question of insurrection, screening himself behindphrases. Mr. Struve vividly shows us what many
      Social-Democrats stubbornly fail to see, namely, that a
      revolutionary period differs from ordinary, everyday preparatory
      periods in history in that the temper, excitement and
      convictions of the masses must and do reveal themselves inaction.

Vulgar revolutionism fails to see that the word is also a deed;
      this proposition is indisputable when applied to historygenerally, or to those periods of history when no open
      political mass actions take place, and when they can not be
      replaced or artificially evoked by putsches of any
      sort.Khvostistrevolutionaries fail to understand
      that—when a revolutionary period has started, when the old
      “superstructure” has cracked from top to bottom, when open
      political action on the part of the classes and masses who are
      creating a new superstructure for themselves has become a fact,
      when civil war has begun—then, to confine oneself to
      “words”as of old, and fail to advance thedirect
      sloganto pass to “deeds,” still to try avoid deeds by
      pleading the need for “psychological conditions” and
      “propaganda” in general, is apathy, lifelessness, pedantry, or
      else betrayal of the revolution and treachery to it. The
      Frankfurt windbags of the democratic bourgeoisie are a memorable
      historical example of just such treachery, or of just such
      pedantic stupidity.

Would you like an explanation of this difference between vulgar
      revolutionism and thekhvostismof revolutionaries by
      an example taken from the history of the Social Democratic
      movement in Russia? We shall give you such an explanation. Call
      to mind the years 1901 and 1902, which are so recent but which
      already seem ancient history to us today. Demonstrations had
      begun. The protagonists of vulgar revolutionism raised a cry
      about “storming”

      (Rabocheye

      Dyelo[4])

      “bloodthirsty leaflets” were issued (of Berlin
      origin, if my memory does not fail me), attacks were made on the
      “literature writing” and armchair nature of the idea of
      conducting agitation on a national scale through a newspaper

      (Nadezhdin).[5]On the other hand, thekhvostismof revolutionaries was revealed in preaching
      that “the economic struggle is thebestmeans of
      political agitation.” What was the attitude of the revolutionary
      Social-Democrats?They attacked both these trends. They
      condemned flash in-the-pan methods and the cries about storming,
      for it was or should have been obvious to all that open mass
      action was a matter of the days to come. They condemnedkhvostismand bluntly issued the sloganevenof a popular armed insurrection, not in the sense of a direct
      appeal (Mr. Struve would not discover any appeals to “riots” in
      our utterances of that period), but in the sense of anecessarydeduction, in the sense of “propaganda”
      (about which Mr. Struve has bethought himself only now—our
      honourable Mr. Struve is always several years behind the times),
      in the sense of preparing those very “social-psychological
      conditions” about which the representatives of the bewildered,
      huckstering bourgeoisie are now holding forth “sadly and
      inappropriately.”At that timepropaganda and
      agitation, agitation and propaganda, were really pushed to the
      fore by the objective state of affairs.At that timethe work of publishing an all-Russian political newspaper, the
      weekly issuance of which was regarded as an ideal, could be
      proposed (and was proposed inWhat Is To Be Done?) as
      the touchstone of the work of preparing for an
      insurrection.At that timethe slogans advocating mass
      agitationinsteadof direct armed action, preparation
      of the social-psychological conditions for insurrectioninstead offlash-in-the-pan methods, were the only
      correct slogans for the revolutionary Social-Democratic
      movement. Atthe present timethe slogans have been
      superseded by events, the movement has left them behind, they
      have become tatters, rags fit only to cloth the hypocrisy of theOsvobozhdeniyeand of the newIskratailism!

Or perhaps I am mistaken? Perhaps the revolution has not yet
      begun? Perhaps the time for open political action of classes has
      not yet arrived? Perhaps there is still no civil war, and the
      criticism of weapons should not as yet be thenecessaryand obligatory successor, heir, trustee and wielder of the
      weapon of criticism?

Look around, poke your head out of your study and look into the
      street for an answer. Has not the government itself started
      civil war by shooting down hosts of peaceful and unarmed
      citizens everywhere? Are not the armed Black Hundreds acting as
      “arguments” of the autocracy? Has not the bourgeoisie—even
      the bourgeoisie—recognised the need for a citizens’
      militia? Does not Mr. Struve himself, the ideallymoderate and
      punctilious Mr. Struve, say (alas, he says so only to evade the
      issue!) that “the open nature of revolutionary action” (that’s
      the sort of fellows we are today!) “is now one of the most
      important conditions for exerting an educational influence upon
      the masses of the people”?

Those who have eyes to see can have no doubt as to how the
      question of armed insurrection must be presented by the
      partisans of revolution at the present time. Just take a look at
      thethreeways in which this question has been
      presented in the organs of the free press which are at all
      capable of influencing themasses.

Presentation one. The resolution of the Third Congress of the
      Russian Social-Democratic Labour

				Party.[3]It is publicly acknowledged and declared that the generaldemocratic revolutionary movementhas already brought about the necessityof an armed
      insurrection. The organisation of the proletariat for an
      insurrection has been placed on the order of the day as one of
      the essential, principal andindispensabletasks of the
      Party. Instructions are issued to adopt themost
      energeticmeasures to arm the proletariat and to ensure the
      possibility of directly leading the insurrection.

The second presentation. An article in theOsvobozhdeniye, containing a statement of principles,
      by the “leader of the Russian constitutionalists” (as Mr. Struve
      was recently described by such an influential organ of the
      European bourgeoisie as theFrankfurter
      Zeitung[6]),

      or the leader of the Russian progressive bourgeoisie. He does
      not share the opinion that an insurrection is inevitable. Secret
      activity and riots are the specific methods of irrational
      revolutionism. Republicanism is a method of stunning. The
      question of armed insurrection is really a mere technical
      question, whereas “the fundamental and most necessary task” is
      to carry on mass propaganda and to prepare the
      social-psychological conditions.

The third presentation. The resolution of the newIskra-ist Conference. Our task is to prepare an
      insurrection. A planned insurrection is out of the
      question. Favourable conditions for an insurrection are created
      by the disorganisation of the government, by our agitation, and
      by our organisation. Only then “can technical military
      preparations acquire more or less serious significance.”

And is that all? Yes, that is all. The newIskra-ist
      leaders of the proletariat still do not know whether
      insurrection has become a necessity. It is still not clear to
      them whether the task of organising the proletariat for direct
      battle has become an urgent one. It is not necessary to urge the
      adoption of the most energetic measures; it is far
      more important (in 1905, and not in 1902) to explain in general
      outlines under what conditions these measures “may” acquire
      “more or less serious” significance....

Do you see now, comrades of the newIskra, where your
      turn to Martynovism has led you? Do you realise that your
      political philosophy has proved to be a rehash of theOsvobozhdeniyephilosophy?—that (against your will
      and with out your being aware of it) you are following at the
      tail of the monarchistbourgeoisie? Is it clear to you now that,
      while repeating what you have learned by rote and attaining
      perfection in sophistry, you have lost sight of the fact
      that—in the memorable words of Peter Struve’s memorable
      article—“the open nature of revolutionaryactionis now one of the most important conditions for exerting an
      educational influence upon the masses of the people”?

[1]“In comparison with the revolutionism of Messrs. Lenin and associates,
        the revolutionism of the West-European Social-Democracy of Bebel,
        and even of Kautsky, is opportunism; but the foundations of even
        this already toned down revolutionism have been undermined and
        washed away by history.”

      A most irate thrust. Only Mr. Struveis mistaken in thinking
      that it is possible to pile everything on to me, as if I were
      dead. It is sufficient for me to issue a challenge to
      Mr. Struve, which he will never be able to accept. When and
      where did I call the “revolutionism of Bebel and Kautsky”
      opportunism? When and where did I ever claim to have created any
      sort of special trend in International Social-Democracynot
      identicalwith the trend of Bebel and Kautsky? When and
      where have there been brought to light differences between me,
      on the one hand, and Bebel and Kautsky, on the
      other—differences even slightly approximating in
      seriousness the differences between Bebel and Kautsky, for
      instance, on the agrarian question in

      Breslau?[7]Let Mr Struve try to answer these three questions.—Lenin

To our readers we say: The liberal bourgeoisieeverywhereand always has recourse to the method of assuring
      its adherents in a given country that the Social-Democrats of that
      country are the most unreasonable, whereas their comrades in a
      neighbouring country are “good boys.” The German bourgeoisie has held
      up those “good boys” of French Socialists as models for the Bebels
      and the Kautskyshundreds of times. The French bourgeoisie
      quite recently pointed to the “good boy” Bebel as a model for the
      French Socialists. It is an old trick Mr. Struve! You will find only
      children and ignoramuses swallowing that bait. The complete unanimity
      of international revolutionary Social-Democracy on all major
      questions of program and tactics is a most incontrovertible fact.—Lenin

[2]Let us remind the reader that the article “What Should Not Be Done?”
    (Iskra, No. 52) was hailed with noise and clamour by theOsvobozhdeniyeas a “noteworthy turn” towards concessions to
    the opportunists. The trends of the principles behind the newIskraideas were especially lauded by theOsvobozbdeniyein an item on the split among the Russian
    Social-Democrats. Commenting on Trotsky’s pamphlet, “Our Political
    Tasks,” theOsvobozhdeniyeprinted out the similarity between
    the ideas of this author and what was once written and said by theRabocheye Dyelo-ists Krichevsky, Martynov, Akimov (see the
    leaflet entitled “An Obliging Liberal” published by theVperyod). TheOsvobozhdeniyewelcomed Martynov’s
    pamphlet on the two dictatorships (see the item in theVperyod, No. 9). Finally Starover’s belated complaints about
    the old slogan of the oldIskra, “first draw a line of
    demarcation and then unite,” met with special sympathy on the part of
    theOsvobozbdeniye.—Lenin

[3]The following is the text in full:

“1. the proletariat, being, by virtue of its very position, the
      most advanced and the only consistently revolutionary class, is
      for that very reason called upon to play the leading part in the
      general democratic revolutionary movement in Russia;

“2. this movement has already brought about the necessity of an
      armed insurrection;

“3. the proletariat will inevitably take a most energetic part
      in this insurrection, this participation determining the fate of
      the revolution in Russia;

“4. the proletariat can play the leading part in this revolution
      only if it is welded into a united and independent political
      force under the banner of the Social-Democratic Labour Party,
      which is to guide its struggle not only ideologically but
      practically as well;

“5. it is only by fulfilling this part that the proletariat can
      be assured of the most favourable conditions for the struggle
      for Socialism against the propertied classes of a
      bourgeois-democratic Russia;

“Therefore the Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. recognises that
      the task of organising the proletariat for direct struggle
      against the autocracy through armed insurrection is one of the
      most important and pressing tasks of the Party in the present
      revolutionary period.

“The Congress therefore resolves to instruct all the Party
      organisations:

“a) to explain to the proletariat by means of propaganda and
      agitation not only the political importance, but also the
      practical organisational aspect of the impending armed
      insurrection;

“b) in this propaganda and agitation to explain the part played
      by mass political strikes, which may be of great importance at
      the beginning and in the very process of the insurrection;

“c) to adopt the most energetic measures to arm
      the proletariat and also to draw up a plan for the armed insurrection
      and for direct leadership of the latter, establishing for this
      purpose, to the extent that it is necessary, special groups of Party
      functionaries.”

[Author’s note to the 1907 
edition.–Ed.]—Lenin

[7]Differences of opinion were revealed during the discussion of
  the draft agrarian programme at the Breslau Congress of the
  German Social-Democratic Party, 1895.

[4]PLACEHOLDER

[5]The reference is to Nadezhdin’s press attack on the plan of the
      LeninistIskra(Nadezhdin was the pseudonym of
      Y. 0. Zelensky). Lenin criticised this attack as far back as
      1902, in hisWhat Is To
      Be Done?.

[6]PLACEHOLDER